As we hope and pray for good news about the remaining hostages in Gaza (and maybe in Iran), we might at least savor the fact that perhaps the best-treated hostage in world history – or at least one of the best treated – was Queen Esther, who was not looking for royalty when she was swept away by the people charged by King Ahasuerus to recruit (by force, if necessary) potential beauty contestants. (“Esther was taken to the King’s palace.” Esther 2:8. She did not volunteer to central casting for the role.)
In all probability, once all the “contestants” were already assembled, Esther was the only contestant who did not want to win (not wanting to be routinely violated by the non-Jewish despotic king, and not knowing of the miracles that were to follow and the role she would play in implementing them), but she nevertheless became the only first-place winner from all 127 provinces within the Persian Empire. Things worked out pretty well for her, and more significantly, of course, for the Jewish people.
According to the Talmud, when it became known that King David was “in the parsha” (not a quote, but a current expression), looking for a wife, “whoever had a daughter brought her to him,” but by contrast, when King Ahasuerus sent out his matchmakers to find a potential wife, “whoever had a daughter hid her from him” (Talmud Megilla 12b), and for good reason. There could be only one winner; there were no prizes for runners up who came in 2nd or 3rd place, and no honorary mentions, and every loser lost not only her virginity but also her freedom forever, in a harem, according to some sources, which in some ways was worse than what happened even to some of the October 7 hostages, who always had hope for freedom, especially in light of the Israelis’ track record of saving hostages by force or negotiations, and there were no comparable forces in Persia at the time to even attempt either of these approaches.
Most of today’s remaining hostages, of course, or any hostages of any era, aren’t quite or even comparably successful as Queen Esther was. The daf yomi studied around the world – though not very much in what is left in Persia/Iran nowadays – on the Fast of Esther discusses kidnapping situations in general – another way to say hostages. (Actually, there were two relevant dapim– the one studied that day (Sanhedrin 86) and the one studied the day before.)
One of the Ten Commandments outlaws kidnapping, though, unfortunately, the death penalty imposed by the Bible did not and is not likely to deter the forces of Hamas – even though they are subject to the Noahide laws which include setting up court systems which should theoretically mete out justice; however, the topic of kidnapping is very much on our minds nowadays. So even if there is little we can do to resolve the problem, at least we can derive some insights and inspiration from what the Talmud has to say about it.
The Talmud discusses four levels of kidnapping, but none rise to the level of evil perpetrated by Hamas. (1) abducting, (2) bringing the victim into the possession of the perpetrator, (3) using or exploiting or enslaving him (although enslavement is spelled out not directly in either rendition of the Ten Commandments but rather in Vayikra 25:42), and then (4) selling him (Devarim 24:7). Notice that the Talmud discusses the death sentence for such heinous acts but doesn’t even mention torturing the victim or murdering the victim – or using psychological manipulations (as obviously in the case(s) of Hamas). Query whether there is any punishment in Gehinom appropriate for such acts of barbarity beyond the death sentence
The language in the Ten Commandments (not to “steal,” lo tignov) (Shemot and Devarim) is virtually identical to the language in Vayikra 19:11 (lo tignovu) except that the language in the Ten Commandments refers to kidnapping (of kids and adults) and the language in Vayikra refers to stealing property and is in the plural. The Talmud explains that the fundamental difference is based on the context (which is beyond the purview of this article). But the fact that the prohibition in Vayikra is in the plural obviously has to be for a reason, even if the reason may not be obvious (to put it mildly).
The B’er Yosef of Salant, as cited by Rabbi Shalom Rosner, observed that when property is stolen, and then the victim locates the stolen property and tries to recover it, it seems to onlookers as if he – the victim – is stealing, and he is taken (or mistaken) for being a robber, so there are two apparent (though not actual in the second case, nor apparent in the first case) instances of stealing, hence lo tignovu in the plural whereas in the case of kidnapping, the victim can’t undo the damage caused by the crime with another act seemingly identical to it, but simply escapes, hence lo tignov in the singular; the offensive behavior only happens once and by one party
Actually, this writer notes that there is a similarity in the case of kidnapping as well, where the fleeing victim may be mistaken for a kidnapper (guarding or chasing a victim, or simply running for cover or for any other reason), as was the case of the Jews who were kidnapped by Hamas and then killed by the “friendly fire” of Israeli soldiers who tragically mistook them for kidnappers and/or terrorists.
We hope and pray that the Moshiach will come soon and in our time, so we will not be confronted by kidnappers or robbers or any other people interfering with peace and justice.
